JulioD Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 How is this different to the introduction of Mini DV? it allowed filmmakers to make a digital movie where it used to cost many tens of thousands of dollars. This feels like the same leap but with animation. What it does is impressive. But it’s still a tool operated by a human. The I stands for intelligence, but it’s not independently thinking or creating. While reality tv is contrived it’s still the work of independently performing humans (actors?) with their own flaws and traits. Even if they followed a script what they bring and how they perform it is unique in that moment. I’m not sure AI will replicate that human agency any time soon. It may be able to fake it and maybe that will be good enough but I suspect that the audience won’t see it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ty Harper Posted February 17 Author Share Posted February 17 5 minutes ago, JulioD said: How is this different to the introduction of Mini DV? it allowed filmmakers to make a digital movie where it used to cost many tens of thousands of dollars. This feels like the same leap but with animation. What it does is impressive. But it’s still a tool operated by a human. The I stands for intelligence, but it’s not independently thinking or creating. While reality tv is contrived it’s still the work of independently performing humans (actors?) with their own flaws and traits. Even if they followed a script what they bring and how they perform it is unique in that moment. I’m not sure AI will replicate that human agency any time soon. It may be able to fake it and maybe that will be good enough but I suspect that the audience won’t see it that way. Julio do you work professionally in the media/film production industry? Not meant with any condescension or malice - just want to get a sense of where you're coming from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurtlandPhoto Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 11 hours ago, kye said: I agree, but I think there is a distinction here between videos that contain people I know/care-about/etc and people I don't. If a movie people see has Brad Pitt in it, people probably don't care if it was the real Brad Pitt or an AI version of him, and if they go see a movie they probably don't care if the actors are even real people or AI generated fictional characters. However, if I watch a video that has anyone I know in it, and it's a depiction of a real-life event then it matters if it was real footage or not. This might seem to be irrelevant detail, but I think that this means that the following parts of the industry may not be completely gutted: Documentaries Sports videography Engagement/Wedding videography (although some might want a more 'enhanced' version than reality) Event videography (birthdays, bar/bat-mitzvah and other religious occasions, etc) Corporate videos All live-streamed event videography News and current affairs TV perhaps others? These are pretty significant percentages of the entire professional moving images industry. It's easy to start thinking that no-one will pick up a camera professionally any more, but that's just not likely to be the case. Even if you're right that people born from now onwards don't have any special relationship with reality (which I don't think will happen for a very long time), the people who are 10 years old now might live for another 100 years and they probably want to continue to want to see real life content, so that will be phased out pretty slowly. I 100% agree with you. There will always be a place for authentic video and photo capture no matter how good AI gets. Things are about to get disrupted certainly, but it’s not all doom and gloom. Actually, I suspect there to be a bit of a counter-movement to AI shortly after it gets to the levels people are worried about. I see authenticity almost becoming a brand all on its own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulioD Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 4 hours ago, Ty Harper said: but sh*tty is just a ridiculous descriptor of something that is still developing. It is imo good enough for us to understand the implications for the art-based labor industry. Here’s Sora’s own post. At first glance maybe it passes. The more you look the worse it gets. Just look at the hands for one. They are truly shitty. The scale is wrong. The number of fingers is wrong. What they are doing is wrong. Then look at the reactions on the face. Look at the performance from these actors. The woman who seems to also be missing a piece of her blouse on one arm can’t work out if she’s clapping or sneezing? Watch it and genuinely look at the performance. If they were going for Cronenberg horror then they succeeded. But they weren’t. This is their best foot forward. So yeah. Still shitty, even if photorealistic shitty… The landscape stuff is better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ty Harper Posted February 18 Author Share Posted February 18 I mean I'm not really trying to argue about all of this. I think we're all gna cope with a moment like this in different ways. What matters is we're aware that it's happening and we aren't naive about what it might mean for many of us and/or our peers' livelihoods. IronFilm 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulioD Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 I have been around. Yeah it is condescending to ask. WTF have you done? I actually dont really want to know because we’re talking on a forum. Who cares. I started when call sheets were faxed. There have been many revolutions in my career where every one thought the world was going to change significantly and they either fizzled out, or things did indeed change but more that things got incorporated. I can list a few that I have personally been a part of. Many of them were a really big upending when they first appeared. Like OMG we have to learn this new skill because all the business is going that way!!! To list them now seems laughable. But at the beginning all these were a big deal. I say this to say, this too shall pass. VR/360 immersive / augmented media. Digital video recorded with a raw codec 3D using a DSLR to make content. shooting ProRes and commercials on a phone HFR 16x9 shaped television high definition 4k television multimedia DVD for home DVD authoring digital terrestrial transmission Single sensor digital cameras digital video the internet Cell phones Cell phones with Internet non linear editing. Film prints being on film. Im probably missing a few things. I started in the late 80s. This looks to not be be so far off these changes. I mean we still listen to radio. It didn’t go away with the arrival of television. It’s a tool, just like other tools. It’s not magic. It’s not original. Some jobs will go away. Some new jobs will be created. So far it’s a DJ. A DJ makes new music by mixing or remixing exisiting music. Is a DJ even a musician? Does it count if you can’t play an instrument? It’s the same kinds of argument and logic. The biggest leap is that you don’t have to pay labor costs. That’s not a creative driver for new work. That’s a way to make work cheaper. I don’t think it helps much in Hollywood other than for previs and decks where it’s already making an impact. YouTube and TikTok is where all this new content is going to be showing up. And it’s just content. Choose your own adventure sounds great. They are sort of popular but they aren’t what anyone wants to actually read. We want to be told a story. Not have a custom story built for us by an algorithm. We have to trust the audience more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zerocool22 Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 8 hours ago, JulioD said: Here’s Sora’s own post. At first glance maybe it passes. The more you look the worse it gets. Just look at the hands for one. They are truly shitty. The scale is wrong. The number of fingers is wrong. What they are doing is wrong. Then look at the reactions on the face. Look at the performance from these actors. The woman who seems to also be missing a piece of her blouse on one arm can’t work out if she’s clapping or sneezing? Watch it and genuinely look at the performance. If they were going for Cronenberg horror then they succeeded. But they weren’t. This is their best foot forward. So yeah. Still shitty, even if photorealistic shitty… The landscape stuff is better. Its gonna be way easier to direct the AI then it is to direct shitty actors. AI is improving at lightning speed, in 5 years time you can create high end car commercials from your bedroom, just based off your visionboard/storyboard, no need to gather a crew, fly across the world, lock off roads, rent gear, ... they prolly need to introduce new laws, as its easy to bypass specific location laws now. IronFilm 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulioD Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 1 minute ago, zerocool22 said: Its gonna be way easier to direct the AI then it is to direct shitty actors. AI is improving at lightning speed, in 5 years time you can create high end car commercials from your bedroom, just based off your visionboard/storyboard, no need to gather a crew, fly across the world, lock off roads, rent gear, ... they prolly need to introduce new laws, as its easy to bypass specific location laws now. I’m sure that a version of this is true. but I think what ends up happening is authenticity will suddenly become a premium. Something that is real or authentic will have a different perception to the thing that anyone could do in the basement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted February 18 Administrators Share Posted February 18 My thoughts on Sora, the long version: https://www.eoshd.com/news/sora-destroyer-of-worlds-also-world-generator/ After a few more days of reflecting I think there's a lot of positives, this can be the democratising of filmmaking the DSLR revolution promised but with bells on... almost zero cost barriers in terms of these virtual actors, locations, crews, cameras, lighting. A democracy of ideas can flourish and your imagination will be able to run wild on the screen. All I can say is your ideas better be good because we are heading for a big over-saturation of content out there. It will be tougher and tougher to stand out and get noticed. Tougher to earn any money from it. Tougher to rise above the immense competition out there. Will help to get in early, to show you are experienced in it. Will help when it comes to jobs. There will be a lot of jobs in curation of AI media, and also in the policing of it. The problem I have with all of this is... How enjoyable and satisfying is it going to be for both artists and the audience? Cinematographers love the real world process of filming, and if that is reduced to button-pressing and typing prompts, it isn't the same in terms of craft. So those that enjoy the traditional craft will want to continue doing it, especially those who already have the privilege of being able to do it for a living. And the same goes for all the other film roles... acting, writing, directing, and the social aspect of having a team, a crew. AI also has an authenticity problem. Will audiences get tired of watching synthetic content, no matter how good the "end result" is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kye Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 On 2/18/2024 at 3:08 AM, Ty Harper said: Reality TV is not even 'reality' and clearly cares little for the tenets of JSP, so I would argue that format will embrace AI with the quickness and you'll have AI-based characters that viewers are rooting for... I agree that "reality TV" won't be saved and didn't put it in my list. Apart from the fact it's scripted or the participants are poked with a stick until they explode, and the editing is practically perjury, but in the end the audience doesn't know or care who they are as people - they are simply characters that no-one knows and so could be anyone (or no-one). On 2/18/2024 at 3:28 AM, JulioD said: While reality tv is contrived it’s still the work of independently performing humans (actors?) with their own flaws and traits. Even if they followed a script what they bring and how they perform it is unique in that moment. I’m not sure AI will replicate that human agency any time soon. It may be able to fake it and maybe that will be good enough but I suspect that the audience won’t see it that way. I think it's pretty easy to look at AI and think that it looks like an awkward and clunky human being and conclude that it has a long way to go, but I think that's a misleading way to think about it. AI is literally trillions and trillions of incredibly fast calculators. Literally. So, acknowledging that, it's more useful to think that AI technology has managed to go from being a calculator to being a human-a-like, which is a thousand billion miles from where it started. The journey from where it is now to where it will be refined and sophisticated and creative and expressive isn't nothing, but it's short in comparison to the journey it's already taken. ... and in case you're not getting a sense of it, here is how human it was to begin with: 1+1=2 3>2=true 8/2=4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulioD Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 4 hours ago, kye said: AI is literally trillions and trillions of incredibly fast calculators. Literally. I get that part. The real question is…will it work creatively well enough for the audience to like it, or even actually prefer it to the real thing? Narrative drama. As opposed to not having a choice (advertising or training content) Right now I see cheap ass producers licking their lips at the idea they can do get more for less. It’s a way to get animation done cheaper and better maybe with famous actors you can skin or liscence for cheap. Doesn’t mean an audience will like it. I don’t like most of the billboards I see on the freeway, but it doesn’t stop people making them. Is someone going to do genuinely compelling emotionally engaging story with it that transcends its computational origins? Im not so sure it’s capable of doing that. Unless it’s DIRECTED by a human. In which case… It really is just another tool for storytelling. Like you know..animation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronFilm Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 On 2/17/2024 at 7:06 PM, JulioD said: Other than the cost of labour, how is this THAT different to animation? "Other than the biggest & game changing difference, how is this different?" On 2/17/2024 at 8:04 PM, kye said: I feel completely safe in doing my own home videos of family and friends. Nobody is paying me to do that On 2/17/2024 at 8:04 PM, kye said: I don't care how photorealistic the AI will get (and it will get to be perfect), there will still be a fundamental difference between what something actually did look like vs what something might have looked like. Everything we do already in filmmaking is about crafting a beautiful looking spin on reality vs being hyper realistic. (even so called "Reality TV" is not even reality) Would generative AI truly be that different from this? On 2/17/2024 at 8:04 PM, kye said: There are parallels in other mediums as well. Art forgeries are still forgeries, even if they're perfect. If you think that no-one will care, just google "art providence" and see how much people really do care. Extremely few people are happy to pay $$$ for that, most people are just happy to hang a pretty picture on their wall. On 2/17/2024 at 10:41 PM, kye said: Documentaries Corporate videos News and current affairs TV They already use tonnes of stock footage in them, and/or lots of B Roll "filler". Using generative AI is only a half step further along from that. On 2/17/2024 at 10:41 PM, kye said: Sports videography Engagement/Wedding videography (although some might want a more 'enhanced' version than reality) Event videography (birthdays, bar/bat-mitzvah and other religious occasions, etc) If we can chuck up a few GoPros to capture the "real" aspect of this to feed the generative AI, that can then spit out flawlessly perfect wedding trailers, then why wouldn't I want this? I'd rather spend $500 for this on my next wedding, than spend $5K for a team of wedding videographers & photographs to do it. Ditto the same is true for birthdays / sports / bar mitzvah / etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronFilm Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 On 2/18/2024 at 6:10 AM, KnightsFan said: No technology can take away the enjoyment of doing something, though it can take away the economic viability of selling it. Which indirectly affects us, because if fewer cameras are sold, people like you and I will face higher equipment prices. That's a good point about how the future domination of AI will impact hobbyists too. We're already seeing a little bit of this, as cellphones replaced dedicated cameras, then we see the more recent generations of mirrorless cameras being less available and less affordable on the secondhand market. Imagine a world where instead of Sony selling however many zillion mirrorless models that they sell currently, where instead they only have three? An a6x00 + a7 + a7R. And each one of those models are being priced relatively 50% higher (or even 100% more) than they are today. Or Nikon and Canon only each have two models. Say the latest Z6 and the Z9. And a world where the smaller players don't even exist. On 2/18/2024 at 6:10 AM, KnightsFan said: Certainly AI is already used in the gaming industry to make assets ahead of time. It will be a bit longer before the computational power exists at the end user to fully leverage AI in real time at 60+ fps. When you have a 13 millisecond rendering budget, it's a delicate balance between clever programming and artistically deciding what you can get away with--and that it requires another leap in intelligence levels. Very few humans are able to design top-tier real time renderers. AI will get there, but it's a vastly more complex task than offline image generation. Totally agreeing. But remember too that when Pixar first existed then making animated CGI films mean it had to be all render beforehand, but today we can get better results than back then even when rending in real time. On 2/18/2024 at 6:10 AM, KnightsFan said: But yes, AI today already threatens every technical game artist the same way it does the film and animation industries, and will likely be the dominant producer of assets in a couple years. In the near term, humans might still make hero assets, but every rock, tree, and building in the background will be AI. Human writers and voice actors might still voice the main character, but in an RPG with 500 background characters and a million lines of dialog, it is cheaper and higher quality for AI to write and voice generic dialog. Why should humans even voice the main characters?? In the very near term, yes. But beyond that? No. On 2/18/2024 at 6:14 AM, JulioD said: and also, last time I checked a Human still “directs” this or arguably “writes” this by prompt, and then refines and edits and selects the best result to “show” How long until even "the director" gets replaced by AI?? But even if we still have that human role, we've still seen a collapse from an animated film needing dozens/hundreds/thousands of people employed to instead... just one job for the humans On 2/18/2024 at 8:08 AM, Ty Harper said: Reality TV is not even 'reality' and clearly cares little for the tenets of JSP, so I would argue that format will embrace AI with the quickness and you'll have AI-based characters that viewers are rooting for... We're already there with "AI Celebrities"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronFilm Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 On 2/18/2024 at 12:51 PM, JulioD said: If they were going for Cronenberg horror then they succeeded. But they weren’t. This is their best foot forward. So yeah. Still shitty, even if photorealistic shitty… You're looking at someone that OpenAI intentionally released to give as "a bad example", they were never for a second saying this is "good". Rather OpenAI was being open and honest about how Sora can still struggle, so that people didn't think they were only showing off the very few rare magical examples where everything came together absolutely perfectly. And you're completing forgetting that less than a year ago this was considering cutting edge (not "a bad example", but the best😞 Don't look only at the current state (which btw is good enough that many stock videographers are going to see their incomes plummet towards zero!), but look also at the rate of change, how quickly it is improving (accelerating even!). On 2/18/2024 at 12:51 PM, JulioD said: The landscape stuff is better. Yes, AI is struggling with humans, but for everything non-human? It's already in many cases has reached the "good enough" level. 22 hours ago, zerocool22 said: Its gonna be way easier to direct the AI then it is to direct shitty actors. AI is improving at lightning speed, in 5 years time you can create high end car commercials from your bedroom, just based off your visionboard/storyboard, no need to gather a crew, fly across the world, lock off roads, rent gear, ... Exactly, in a few years time, who will ever be spending six figures on a car advert? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronFilm Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 On Twitter follow Sam and the others from OpenAI to see the videos they're sharing from Sora, it's truly impossible to watch some of these videos and not be impressed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Sewell Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 I think the kind of content people consume will become even more of a class signifier than it already is. The current low-end, ad-supported market for telenovela/shitty reality etc will increasingly consume AI-generated guff, while the higher-end, subscription content will become more-expensive, but will remain predominantly human-created. Obviously that's still a lot of lost jobs, sadly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kye Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 4 hours ago, JulioD said: I get that part. The real question is…will it work creatively well enough for the audience to like it, or even actually prefer it to the real thing? Narrative drama. As opposed to not having a choice (advertising or training content) Right now I see cheap ass producers licking their lips at the idea they can do get more for less. It’s a way to get animation done cheaper and better maybe with famous actors you can skin or liscence for cheap. Doesn’t mean an audience will like it. I don’t like most of the billboards I see on the freeway, but it doesn’t stop people making them. Is someone going to do genuinely compelling emotionally engaging story with it that transcends its computational origins? Im not so sure it’s capable of doing that. Unless it’s DIRECTED by a human. In which case… It really is just another tool for storytelling. Like you know..animation. Perhaps the critical concept is that AI is calculators trained with only human input data. This whole thing is like when people learned anatomy. At first people thought that we couldn't possibly understand how the body worked because it was made by God. Over many hundreds of years we've basically worked out more and more of the organic chemistry and various principles etc, and now no-one who is familiar with modern medicine would question our ability to understand the physical body. Now comes AI, and we're back to saying that we couldn't possibly understand or replicate what it is to be human, because we're etherial magical special and knowable only to God. I think that line of thinking will suffer the same fate, and will suffer it at thousands of times the pace. Yannick Willox, Ty Harper and QuickHitRecord 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kye Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 3 hours ago, IronFilm said: "Other than the biggest & game changing difference, how is this different?" Nobody is paying me to do that Everything we do already in filmmaking is about crafting a beautiful looking spin on reality vs being hyper realistic. (even so called "Reality TV" is not even reality) Would generative AI truly be that different from this? Extremely few people are happy to pay $$$ for that, most people are just happy to hang a pretty picture on their wall. They already use tonnes of stock footage in them, and/or lots of B Roll "filler". Using generative AI is only a half step further along from that. If we can chuck up a few GoPros to capture the "real" aspect of this to feed the generative AI, that can then spit out flawlessly perfect wedding trailers, then why wouldn't I want this? I'd rather spend $500 for this on my next wedding, than spend $5K for a team of wedding videographers & photographs to do it. Ditto the same is true for birthdays / sports / bar mitzvah / etc I have read and re-read your post over and over, and I just can't seem to get where you're coming from on the majority of your comments. Perhaps the biggest confusion is over reality, and how desirable it is as a concept. People wear nice clothes, do their hair and makeup, but most wouldn't get plastic surgery (even if it was free and instant and perfect) People are fine with having flattering lighting for portraits, but many people are very opposed to being photoshopped etc. People are happy to read fiction and "movie magic" and "the magic of the theatre" but outside of the realms where fiction is acceptable there are often very strong opinions about how far from the truth we are comfortable going. The ninth commandment is literally about lying "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Even if AI generated images are perfect beyond what we could even check, it's sort of like someone completely trustworthy testifying in court when they refuse to take the oath. It either is the truth, or it isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronFilm Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 4 hours ago, kye said: People wear nice clothes, do their hair and makeup, but most wouldn't get plastic surgery (even if it was free and instant and perfect) Most wouldn't???? Sorry, but I completely disagree with that claim being able to be made in the long run if plastic surgery is free/instant/perfect. I mean, it might be true in such a world??? But I've got zero confidence in backing such a bold claim. If I was forced to bet one way or another, I'd bet against it. As I'd suspect in such a world where plastic surgery is free/instant/perfect that in the long run it would become widely accepted/expected. Look for instance at South Korea, already we have nearly one in three Korean women in their 30s who have had at least one plastic surgery operation. And that's with how the world is currently! Where plastic surgery has a risk, isn't perfect, is limited in what it can do, has lengthy recovery times, and is quite expensive. If plastic surgery became free/instant/perfect in South Korea then I reckon you'd see almost overnight easily the majority of South Korean women having plastic surgery. It wouldn't be hard to imagine that with time, the rest of the world's culture would shift to follow Korean culture as well with their attitude to plastic surgery. 4 hours ago, kye said: People are fine with having flattering lighting for portraits, but many people are very opposed to being photoshopped Where is the evidence for this??? What percentage of regular users on Tinder/IG/Snapchat have never not used a filter or similar? https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/04/02/1021635/beauty-filters-young-girls-augmented-reality-social-media/ Quote from it: Snapchat boasts its own stunning numbers. A spokesperson said that “200 million daily active users play with or view Lenses every day to transform the way they look, augment the world around them, play games, and learn about the world,” adding that more than 90% of young people in the US, France, and the UK use the company’s AR products. Yes, it said ninety percent. 4 hours ago, kye said: but outside of the realms where fiction is acceptable there are often very strong opinions about how far from the truth we are comfortable going. Depends on the culture. That can shift and change over time, as to what is "lying" or not. Do you pose for photos? You do? Oh no, you're lying! Only candid snapshots allowed. It used to not be normal to smile in photos, as having your photo taken is serious business. Yet in the western world, this is normal now, as we wish to present a "happy" version of ourselves. And even if there are strong opinions against it, it still won't stop massive numbers of people doing it. For instance there are strong attitudes against catfishing, yet it doesn't stop a huge chunk of people on Tinder/IG/etc from tweaking their photos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kye Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 18 minutes ago, IronFilm said: Most wouldn't???? Sorry, but I completely disagree with that claim being able to be made in the long run if plastic surgery is free/instant/perfect. I mean, it might be true in such a world??? But I've got zero confidence in backing such a bold claim. If I was forced to bet one way or another, I'd bet against it. As I'd suspect in such a world where plastic surgery is free/instant/perfect that in the long run it would become widely accepted/expected. Look for instance at South Korea, already we have nearly one in three Korean women in their 30s who have had at least one plastic surgery operation. And that's with how the world is currently! Where plastic surgery has a risk, isn't perfect, is limited in what it can do, has lengthy recovery times, and is quite expensive. If plastic surgery became free/instant/perfect in South Korea then I reckon you'd see almost overnight easily the majority of South Korean women having plastic surgery. It wouldn't be hard to imagine that with time, the rest of the world's culture would shift to follow Korean culture as well with their attitude to plastic surgery. How much do you know about South Korean culture? There are many things that promote such things in that culture that are not present in other cultures, or are present to a much less significant degree. Seems like a convenient subsample. 19 minutes ago, IronFilm said: What percentage of regular users on Tinder/IG/Snapchat have never not used a filter or similar? https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/04/02/1021635/beauty-filters-young-girls-augmented-reality-social-media/ Quote from it: Snapchat boasts its own stunning numbers. A spokesperson said that “200 million daily active users play with or view Lenses every day to transform the way they look, augment the world around them, play games, and learn about the world,” adding that more than 90% of young people in the US, France, and the UK use the company’s AR products. Yes, it said ninety percent. 90% of the daily users of a platform specifically targeted at people who want to post photos for other people to see. 200 Million is 2.4% of the worlds population. I'd be amazed if 90% of the top 2.4% of the worlds most vain people didn't use it either. Another convenient subsample. 22 minutes ago, IronFilm said: Depends on the culture. That can shift and change over time, as to what is "lying" or not. Do you pose for photos? You do? Oh no, you're lying! Only candid snapshots allowed. It used to not be normal to smile in photos, as having your photo taken is serious business. Yet in the western world, this is normal now, as we wish to present a "happy" version of ourselves. And even if there are strong opinions against it, it still won't stop massive numbers of people doing it. For instance there are strong attitudes against catfishing, yet it doesn't stop a huge chunk of people on Tinder/IG/etc from tweaking their photos. If you're putting posing for photos or smiling into the lying category then I can tell you're either trolling or you're on some serious drugs. The people on Tinder / IG / etc are one of these vanity collections again, like if you surveyed everyone at a Miss World competition and concluded that everyone uses 450g of makeup per day. An AI video is a video where: no pixel was ever directly recorded from real-life there is no way to go back to the source because there was unknowable amounts of training data and limited input data (these mysterious GoPros scattered around) there is no way to know how the training data was processed there is no way to know how the AI works I think we're a tad beyond sucking in your guy when someone pulls out their phone to take a snapshot. On a more general note, I occasionally read members of the forums writing that the world is going down the drain due to one social trend or other, and I just roll my eyes and wonder what the hell they are looking at online. I mean, when you open a browser you don't see anything until you search for that thing, so the things that people say about the world are really just a reflection of what they have somehow become fixated on and have let it distort their world view. JulioD 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.